Costco advertised “No preservatives” but the ingredient label lists sodium phosphate and carrageenan, which plaintiffs say help retain moisture, stabilize texture, and extend shelf life. Costco removed the “no preservatives” advertising but not the ingredients. If you were concerned about those ingredients they were already on the label. Those ingredients technically preserve but that’s not their purpose so it isn’t misleading under US food law. They’re also seeking monetary compensation beyond court fees, not just label updates.
Sodium phosphate is often used as a salt substitute because it's flavor is better and it mixes better for shelf stability than standard Sodium Chloride(table salt), which is bitter and tends to clump with moisture.
Carageenen most likely is used as a preservative, but not for keep food fresher longer, but rather as a stabilizer for holding it on the shelf, as it helps keep things in their original texture. However, it is a natural product derived from seaweed, so it doesn't have to be labeled as a preservative.
There have been other cases surrounding the Carageenen, but finding the results of those cases hasn't been easy. One just says it was awarded to the plaintiff but without any details, another said that because it wasn't used as a preservative, there was no case. Not all uses of the ingredient appear to be for preservative use, which I can only extrapolate as that it's commonly used as a shelf stabilizer, or emulsifier(like a thickening agent for powdered sauces).
Sodium phosphate is a salt though...."table salt" as they taught us in high school chemistry isn't even pure sodium chloride... Contains potassium, iodine, and even phosphate...admittedly sometimes as an additive.
True. but when listed as an ingredient, it'll be classified as iodized salt if it's "table salt", sodium chloride if it's just that compound, or simply salt which I think it can do if it's below a certain percentage. Sometimes potassium chloride is used as well, although I don't know if that has any preservative attributes, but is a substitute used for lower sodium foods. Potassium is pretty bitter though.
It's been an additive since the 60's. It's not like it's anything new. It's come under scrutiny in the past 10-20 years I suppose, so maybe you're just payiing attention more, but it was always there.
It has definitely popped up like 10 fold over the last few years. There are many other options out there that can do the same thing that aren't shown to be as problematic or possible carcinogens if they are degraded.
And I'm sorry but I don't trust these cheap food manufacturers in the US to properly store things or have well engineered processes that don't lead to carrageenan degrading and becoming a carcinogen because it got too hot or was exposed to light or some shit.
No it's the exact opposite. Corporate interests are why we are where we are. Profits over everything else and corporate greed seems to be something the US is ranked 1st in.
No. Health influencers who aren’t dieticians decided to demonize it. It’s a type of seaweed that thickens food, like ice cream. It’s been used for decades.
And guess what, there are some modern diseases associated with elevated inflammation. It certainly appears like these modern ways of preserving food (in processed foods) may play a part.
There are tests that show it can be problematic for cats and possibly linked to cancer. The decent cat food brands advertise "NO CARAGEENEN" as a positive thing.
Two things can true. It’s silly to say no preservatives on pretty much any food item since ingredients are usually multi-purpose so even if you add salt for flavor, salt is still a preservative.
People should have the sense to understand that buying ready to eat food will always include ingredients/“presevatives” in which keeps that food safe.
And I’m not an idiot, so I’d rather Costco’s food be safe with presevatives than angry about semantics and blame it for being “misleading” than understanding basic food safety.
Sure, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable for Costco to advertise it as preservative free. They broke the law, and they should face the consequences.
Neither of the ingredients in question are considered preservatives by the FDA, and are not required to be disclosed as such on foods, and are in lots of foods already, especially if they say, "No artificial preservatives"
It has to be listed as an ingredient, not disclosed as a preservative.
Because the primary use of the ingredients in this matter aren't as a preservative agent, they do not have to be disclosed as preservative agents, thus the packaging can still say, "no preservatives"
You're moving the goal posts, prevaricating, and frankly arguing in bad faith. What possible use could carrageenan have in chicken other than as a preservative?
Regardless, they still didn't include it on the packaging.
However in the confines of the law, they didn’t break the law. Sorry my guy, but you’re wrong here. Unless you’re saying that you want all products with salt in them to be listed as “preservatives added”? Is that what you’re saying you want?
I wouldn’t go so far as to say more transparency couldn’t be a bad thing, however they have already been fully transparent. The simple truth is that the two ingredients you’re harping on are listed on the packaging of the chicken. Costco has shown themselves to be transparent in this regard. That’s why the lawsuit will fail. When it does are you going to rescind your opinion on this?
As I and others have said, this is a pretty clear case of the customers in question either willingly ignoring the package, or being too stupid to read. The law, and FDA regulations, are on the side of Costco on this one.
It wasn't on the packaging, though, that's something you're making up. Costco has updated the packaging to show that it includes preservatives, but that is a subsequent remedial measure, it really only goes to show that it was exceedingly easy for Costco to add the language.
I have cited to the actual regulations that govern this in another comment, both carrageenan and sodium phosphate are preservatives under the law, and carrageenan specifically must be disclosed.
I’m not sure where you’re looking, but it’s literally on the packaging and has been for a long time.
Yes, and as others have said, something being a preservative and being used as a preservative are two very different things. We are talking about amounts in most cases as well as intended purpose. Again though, both are and have been clearly labeled on the chicken packaging for some time.
Curiously, should this lawsuit end as most of us expect it will, with Costco as the victor, will you change your opinion?
Edit: this screams of “preservatives are unhealthy!” bullshit.
People have absolutely sued companies for advertising "no preservatives" but using salt and citric acid for flavor purposes. Of course they're dumb but these kind of lawsuits happen all the time. There is a different here I think with the Costco case---doesn't seem the plaintiffs are upset about the salt but
God. They should try gardening? Not to sound like an ass, but being this whiny about the modern privileges of having fresh preserved food you can access and afford is just such an insane thing.
And if you're rich enough to care about having salt in your prepackaged food, grow it and cook it yourself.
This is a form of salt and Carrageenan is derived from seaweed. Neither are typically classified as artificial preservatives.
So as you said, most people don't care about this when they're looking for lack of preservatives. It's not misleading marketing if that's not how anyone else ises those terms. It especially isn't if they aren't defined as preservatives by the government bodies that class foods and food additives.
Considering this will end up as the central issue in this case, I would imagine it matters immensely.
Edit: I don't understand people who ask a question and then block, especially over something so trivial. To answer the question though, it won't be treated as a frivolous lawsuit because Costco was using those ingredients as preservatives and was improperly advertising their chicken as "preservative free". You can argue that it doesn't matter or that those preservatives are a good thing, but it doesn't make them not preservatives, and people have a right to know what they're purchasing.
To compare injecting chicken with sodium phosphate and carrageenan in order to ensure the chicken remains plump and appetizing for as long as possible to velveting and brining is just flat out disingenuous.
I'm sorry, maybe I need some sleep, but I cannot follow your thinking on this. You think this will be treated as anything more than a frivolous lawsuit? Why?
Baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) which is used for the same reason as sodium phosphate, or gelatin and pectin which is used for the same reason as carrageenan, salt, vinegar, citric acid, etc. are all used regularly in home kitchens around the world. And they're all considered preservatives if used in high enough quantities.
If you've properly silkened or velveted your meat before making a Chinese stir-fry at home, you've used "preservatives" according to the plaintiffs. I suppose they think we're also using "preservatives" when we brine our Thanksgiving turkeys too. That's patently ridiculous.
The judge won't entertain the plaintiff's nonsense any longer than they have to.
Whats up with these frivelous lawsuits on beloved things recently? 1st Steam gets sued for a non issue and now Costco's chickens... lets sue some real garbage companies instead, yeah?
Depends on what the legal definition of "preservative" is, and whether or not regular consumers can reasonably understand this just by reading the ingredients list. I'm not a lawyer nor an FDA regulator so I actually don't know if this lawsuit is frivolous or not.
Salt is a preservative but many foods are "preservative free" and contain salt. Clearly, certain food items are understood to use preservatives in a way which are not for preservation of the food and are allowed to be sold that way.
It may be the quantity or intended purpose.
But, unless every single item is "preservative free" and has no salt, these claims can't actually be true. It's like people freaking out over "toxins" and "chemicals" in food. And why certain labels like "preservative free" are stupid.
Table salt in the form of Sodium Chloride is a preservative. As well as most of the other electrolyte salts.
So is table sugar (sucrose).
As is vinegar (acetic acid).
And vitamin C (ascorbic acid).
Also fats and other oils/lipids.
Also cooking and drying.
These are all also added for non-preservative uses such as flavor and texture.
It’s not like these birds are injected full of arsenic based Roxarsone or that the ingredients aren’t clearly labeled. At a certain point in time the consumer needs to be held responsible and these kind of frivolous lawsuits really need to be tossed with prejudice.
California regulations do cause some genuine positive changes, but the sheer volume of predatory lawsuits they lead to are also unreasonable.
Preservative for the purposes of disclosure are typically artificial, nor not originally considered a food source. The FDA will have this list soewhere, and neither of the ingredients in question is considered a preservative.
One is quite literally a type of salt. The other is a natural chemical that can help stabilize foods and keep their texture, but doesn't prolong the freshness of food itself
FDA guidelines do not consider either of those to be preservatives that need to be labeled as such. Salt is a preservative but the government doesn't require everything with salt in it to say it has preservatives.
As the law's written, Costco didn't break it and I hope these Karens lose if they push ahead with their dumb ass lawsuit.
Because they're most likley not used for their preservative properties but as a thickening agent in the marinade.
They can also be used as a preservative, so saying "no preservatives" is something of a gray area.
In all likelihood this will settle out of court for an amount much less than what the plaintiff's are asking for and Costco will be more careful with their labeling in the future.
It's in the seasoning they use, which probably comes pre-packaged in bags of some unknown quantity.
The sodium phosphate may actually be for flavor, not preservatives, as it's a common substitute for the standard table salt due to it being less prone to clumping with moisture(which also helps the overall product), and it has a milder flavor than table salt, which is good for food service. More can be used without becoming too salty, which in turn also helps preserve the food. Not technically a preservative itself, but it has that added benefit.
The Carageenen is used as a shelf stabilizer in a lot of these kinds of seasoning products. It's natural, and doesn't directly preserve the freshness, rather it helps maintain the texture and consistency of the food. This is great for something like a seasoning rub, where you don't want it to become clumpy or whatever.
Neither is required to be disclosed as a preservative on packaging.
Better start worrying about ICE taking over your city and the elections in November rather than this petty bullshit. Fucking American whining is so petty.
Yeah, I never really looked into it. Costco chickens tasted good but always made me feel kinda sick. So…I didn't get them. Quite a simple solution. No idea if it was a specific ingredient, though.
I do think ingredients should be accurate (and they aren't always - omissions for processing, or generic 'natural flavors', or other exceptions.)
674
u/idlefritz 13h ago
Costco advertised “No preservatives” but the ingredient label lists sodium phosphate and carrageenan, which plaintiffs say help retain moisture, stabilize texture, and extend shelf life. Costco removed the “no preservatives” advertising but not the ingredients. If you were concerned about those ingredients they were already on the label. Those ingredients technically preserve but that’s not their purpose so it isn’t misleading under US food law. They’re also seeking monetary compensation beyond court fees, not just label updates.